masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Trivia Section Guidlines
Looking through trivia section on articles (for now, only the characters trivia are listed), I noticed the following: ;Character pages: * Voice actors profiles (what other titles they worked on) * Similarity to other character of the science fiction genre * Character names: translating, reordering, or other variations on names (those without any source confirmations of their validity) * Referencing other characters of the genre based on something the character may say (such as the ninth bullet in the trivia section on Thane Krios article) Voting Discussion So... what's the point of this, exactly? There doesn't seem to be anything as far as a stated goal, an actual proposal, suggestions, or anything like that. Seems more like observations. SpartHawg948 23:10, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :Indeed. What, exactly, is this for? I think you're trying to propose an elaboration of the Trivia guidelines, but one can never be too sure. Arbington 23:14, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :(Edit conflict) The goal is to decide on a set of rules for adding or removing new trivia. The content of the trivia section on the Manual of Style is not so clear and we have a lot of redundant discussions because it's still unclear (unclear to me, at least). I'm still working on gathering all the various types of trivia and deciding on a way to implement a voting system (I doubt we'll have consensus on everything listed in the 'additional notes'). --silverstrike 23:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::I really don't see the issue with the current way. If something seems bogus, someone can challenge it as such, and we can let people vote on it. Same as what just happened on the Nihlus Kryik page, which you mention above, which actually seems (to me at least) like a great example of the current system working. The problem with setting "set-in-stone" guidelines for trivia is that it will, in all likelihood, cause more issues than the current, purposely nebulous, standards. SpartHawg948 23:25, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :::We had a discussion on Nihlus page and we reached a decision, but what about other articles with similar comparison, should we go over the same discussion again? Regardless, if you feel that this discussion will cause more harm then good, then go ahead and delete it - my intention is not to cause further complications. --silverstrike 23:32, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sure. That's exactly what should happen. If someone has an issue with trivia, but it's not something that is explicitly forbidden by the policy, it should be brought up for discussion. Same principle as page deletions. If a page isn't explicitly forbidden, but someone has issues with it, they need to bring it up. SpartHawg948 23:34, September 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::I step out for dinner and look what I miss. After reading this over I am also trying to figure out is this a proposal, because it seems like it is observations to me also. I don't see a problem with the current system Spart has already stated in that if a trivia point needs to be challenged, then it is done on the talk page, which is what they are there for, and a vote is held. If this is also "set-in-stone", then I can see many issues arising. The current system works fine as demonstrated by the recent Nihlus trivia debate that was settled without a fight and by the same procedures we use for article actions. Those are listed in the Community Guidelines. Lancer1289 23:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::In that case, go ahead and delete this page, no need to continue a redundant discussion that only serve to complicate matters further. --silverstrike 00:02, October 1, 2010 (UTC) :The discussion may be useful in this connection: whose vote counts? To judge from actions, what has happened recently is that trivia (and sometimes content) is removed without discussion, then many people argue over it, but numbers (votes) mean nothing. --AnotherRho 16:19, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Acutally this disucssion is really over and was rejected by a vote of 0-1-4. Trivia is handled on a case by case basis and every vote counds, unles we get sock puppets. Anyway the policy is rejected to continue with what we are currenlty doing, handleing trivia on a case by case basis. It's worked well and I don't see a reason to switch. Lancer1289 16:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)